You are here:

The STAK Model: Exploring Individualized Professional Development for Technology Integration in Literacy

, Drake University, United States ; , George Mason University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 26, Number 4, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

While teachers in many states are implementing the Common Core State Standards, increased attention is being paid to supporting teachers through professional development, especially for meeting standards involving digital literacy. This study explores the influence of targeted professional development, the Support, Time, Access, and Knowledge Model, on the technology integration practices of elementary literacy teachers. Through an in-depth description of three teachers receiving professional development on integration of an iPad into their instruction, we illuminate areas of consideration for influencing teachers through professional development. These include considering teachers’ stances and skills involving digital technology, developing a sense of ownership of content and technology, and providing opportunities for varying degrees of growth as a result of professional development. This study also provides implications for scholars and school leaders in schools that are not oriented towards sustained professional development.

Citation

Woodward, L. & Hutchison, A. (2018). The STAK Model: Exploring Individualized Professional Development for Technology Integration in Literacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(4), 613-644. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Adelman, N., Donnelly, M.B., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wane, A., & Zucker, A. (2002). The integrated studies of educational technology: Professional development and teachers’ use of technology. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
  2. Beach, R. (2012). Uses of digital tools and literacies in the English Language Arts classroom. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45-59.
  3. Blanchard, M.R., LePrevost, C.E., Tolin, A.D., & Gutierrez, K.S. (2016). Investigating Technology-Enhanced Teacher Professional Development in Rural, High-Poverty Middle Schools. Educational Researcher, 45(3), 207220.
  4. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in his tory/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
  5. Dalton, B. (2013). Multimodal Composition and the Common Core State Standards. Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333-339. Doi:10.1002/TRTR.01129Darling-Hammond,L.,Wei,R.,Andree,A.,Richardson,N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf.
  6. Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
  7. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher Beliefs and Technology Integration Practices: A Critical Relationship. Computers& Education, 59(2), 423-435. Doi:10.1016/J.Compedu.2012.02.001
  8. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
  9. Gulamhussein, A. (2014). What will it take to change? Teaching the Teachers: Effective Professional Development in an Era of High Stakes Accountability. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 8.
  10. Hao, Y., & Lee, K.S. (2015). Teachers’ concern about integrating Web 2.0 technologies and its relationship with teacher characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 1-8.
  11. Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
  12. Hiebert, E.H., & Mesmer, H.A.E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common Core State Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44-51.
  13. Hiebert, E.H., & Pearson, P.D. (2010). An examination of current text difficulty indices with early reading texts. Reading research report 10-01. San Francisco, CA: TextProject, Inc.
  14. Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130–146.
  15. Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy Teachers Perceptions of Professional Development that Increases Integration of Technology into Literacy Instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 37-56. Doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659894Woodward and Hutchison to Support Literacy Instruction Relevant to the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 58(2), 147-156. Doi:10.1002/ jaal.335
  16. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies into Literacy Instruction: A National Survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312-333.
  17. Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A Planning Cycle for Integrating Digital Technology Into Literacy Instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455-464.
  18. Jenkins, S., & Agamba, J.J. (2013). The missing link in the CCSS initiative: Professional development for implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2), 69-79.
  19. Kim, M.K., Xie, K., & Cheng, S.-L. (2017). Building teacher competency for digital content evaluation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 309-324.
  20. Kusmawan, U. (2017). Online Microteaching: A Multifaceted Approach to Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 15(1), 42-56.
  21. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New” in New Literacies. In M. Knobel& C. Lankshear (Eds.), A New Literacies Sampler (Vol. 29, pp. 1-24). New York, NY:
  22. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.
  23. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Doi:10.1111/J.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  24. Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: A Large-Scale Faculty Professional Development Program on Effective Integration of Educational Technology. Educational Technology& Society, 18(3), 16–28.
  25. Niederhauser, D.S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31. Doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00036-6
  26. Ortiz, J., Burlingame, C., Onuegbulem, C., Yoshikawa, K., & Rojas, E.D. (2012). The Use of Video Self-Modeling with English Language Learners: Implications for Success. Psychology in the Schools(1), 23-29.
  27. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M.J. (2010). Reexamining Technology’s Role in Learner-Centered Professional Development. Educational Technology Research and Development(5), 557-571. Doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9146-5
  29. Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Desimon, L., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a threeyear study. US Department of Education Report No. 2000-04. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/epdp/report.pdf
  30. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  31. Sahin, A., Top, N., & Delen, E. (2016). Teachers’ first-year experience with chromebook laptops and their attitudes towards technology integration. Technology, Knowledge& Learning, 21(3), 361-378. Doi:10.1007/s10758-016-9277-9
  32. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  33. Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Prestridge, S., Albion, P., & Edirisinghe, S. (2016). Responding to Challenges in Teacher Professional Development for ICT Integration in Education. Educational Technology& Society, 19(3), 110-120.
  34. Thoma, J., Hutchison, A., Johnson, D., Johnson, K., & Stromer, E. (2017). Planning for Technology Integration in a Professional Learning Community. Reading Teacher, 71(2), 167-175.
  35. Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246.
  36. Vaughan, M., & Beers, C. (2017). Using an Exploratory Professional Development Initiative to Introduce iPads in the Early Childhood Education Classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 321-331. and Hutchison

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.